Canada’s oil sands are one of the most carbon-intensive sources of crude in the world, and for American climate activists, the Keystone XL pipeline represents a “line in the sand” on climate policy.

But greenhouse gas produced by the oil sands is a fraction of the amount spewed by U.S. coal-fired power plants. In 2010, the oil sands produced 48 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions. Coal-fired power plants in the state of Wisconsin alone produced 43 million tons.

No wonder Canadian politicians challenge environmentalists who rally in Washington to stop the Keystone pipeline but are not chaining themselves to the White House fence to demand the shutdown of power stations.

There have been proven strides in oil sands production. Take cogeneration and parafinnic froth treatment for examples. Developing these technologies shows the industry’s huge investments in research over the years. Innovation of private industry is key.

The U.S. State Department has recognized these innovations in its evaluation of the Keystone XL stating "Oil sands mining projects have reduced greenhouse gas emissions intensity by an average of 39 percent between 1990 and 2008 and are working toward further reductions,” this was the conclusion in the final Environmental Impact Statement.

Highdesertman's Comments bear repeating: "Comparing emissions for Keystone vs. our legacy coal-fired power plants is totally illogical. Clean air regulations for coal have been tightening down for years and coal now represents a much smaller component of total electrical generation than it did twenty or thirty years ago and will continue to decline. However, adding a new source of pollution is certainly not going to help matters any. It sounds like the Canadians (or at least this editorial writer) are grasping at straws to make their case for the pipeline."

VomVom you need to complete your high school chemistry course. You are right on your calculation of CO2 on California crude as far as you went on making steam. But oils sands use heavy oil as boiler fuel. According to API data tha difference between NG is 55% of the carbon of heavy oil per mmbtu. So now multiply the 5 for California by .55=2.75 to get the actual mole ratio for CO2 content per barrel produced based on fuel used. Then there is all the carbon produced in transportation. California it is 120-150 miles from Bakersfield to the refineries, Ventura is less than 10 miles. Alberta to Texas is HOW many pipeline miles and how many megawatts per barrel to pump it? Most generation from ND to Texas is dirty old coal.

Exactly what real benefit does this pipeline bring for the U.S.? I think most people know by now that the cost of oil is due to market manipulation, not supply. In my opinion, the missisippi river could be made of oil and prices still wouldn't come down. There is absolutely no incentive to lower gas prices when so much money is being made. You can liken it to an animal having it's first taste of blood. Now that it's tasted it, it wants more and more and will do anything to get it.

Comparing emissions for Keystone vs. our legacy coal-fired power plants is totally illogical. Clean air regulations for coal have been tightening down for years and coal now represents a much smaller component of total electrical generation than it did twenty or thirty years ago and will continue to decline. However, adding a new source of pollution is certainly not going to help matters any. It sounds like the Canadians (or at least this editorial writer) are grasping at straws to make their case for the pipeline.

The premise of this article is one of the key reasons Obama will NOT approve the pipeline. The bone thrown to his eco-socialist buddies is more important to him than the biscuit thrown to his union-thug buddies.

Canadian oil sands crude production emits less CO2 than the heavy oil production in California. The average steam oil ratio (SOR) of Canadian oil sands production is 3 and the average SOR of heavy oil production in California is 5. It takes more steam to produce Californian heavy oil and steam is generated by burning natural gas emitting CO2 (a GHG).

Also, Canadian oil sands production operations are infinitely cleaner and produce less GHG compared to operations in Venezuela and Nigeria. The US is still a net importer of crude oil. If the US did not purchase Canadian crude, the US would have to import more crude from Venezuela and Nigeria. The net result is more GHG emissions.

Canadian oil sands production accounts for 6.5% of Canada's total GHG emissions. And Canada's GHG is less than 2% of the world's total GHG. Even if one were to shut down all of Canada’s oil sands production, the net benefit to world GHG reduction would be less than 0.13%. So the claim by the liberal left wingnut eco-terrorists, that if the KXL were built it would be game over for planet earth, is just a lie. If they were serious about curbing GHG emission, they should protest to shut down all of the coal fired power generating stations in the US. Coal still accounts for 38% of the US power generating capacity. They should go protest in China which is the world’s biggest GHG emitter. They should go protest in Venezuela and Russia. Of course, they do not. So they are just a bunch of lying hypocrites.

Coal can be upgraded to produce much cleaner energy. The North American grid system was structured on central power generation plants. It's a surer and faster bet to upgrade the coal plants and allow a few decades to make financially viable changes.

"...Greenhouse gas produced by the oil sands is a fraction of the amount spewed by U.S. coal-fired power plants. In 2010, the oil sands produced 48 million tons of carbon-dioxide emissions. Coal-fired power plants in the state of Wisconsin alone produced 43 million tons." So what is the problem, Mr. President? Your Pac-Groups?